This is part 3 in a series on the Heartland Institute's supposedly rigorous study (pdf) on the state of global warming science. This flawed paper has been distributed to 10,000 Utahns by the Utah-based Sutherland Institute, a "sister" of the Heartland Institute.

Paul T. Mero, the president of the Sutherland Institute claims that, "for skeptics, we went out of our way to include a special analysis of the methodology used to create this study. This report is an honest reflection of the international scientific community..."

Let's see how that holds up.

Flaw #2: Heartland's study is based on opinions from 4 years ago

An opinion poll is a snapshot of a moment in time, and because opinions are sensitive and lend themselves to change due to new events and new knowledge, an opinion poll can quickly go out of date. For example, since 2003 when the Heartland Institute collected its responses, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new round of reports showing even higher levels of confidence in the role humans play in effecting the climate. It is most likely that the opinions of many scientists have changed since 2003.

If the Heartland Institute's data was sound, which it is not as I've shown in a previous post, the most that could be concluded is that in 2003 the scientific community was not in agreeance about the causes and effects of climate change.

For the Sutherland Institute to portray the Heartland Institute study as a reflection of the current situation in the international scientific community is incorrect and misleading.